“Feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison” — Margaret Thatcher
Radical Gender Theory
Without question, the new civil rights movement for the Left is transgenderism. However, claims made by transgender activists effectively erase women and men as a biological category, replaced by one’s “gender identity”. There has been a long push by the United Nations, universities, leftwing activists, companies, and politicians to embed this ideology throughout the world. I will refer to these claims as “radical gender theory”.
(For anyone who is unfamiliar with this complicated topic, I’d suggest reading this easily understandable article.)
I often think that I sound as though I’m a conspiracy theorist when I explain radical gender ideology. My girlfriend’s reply summed up this madness: “This is bullshit”, she said. Here is a list of claims:
- Biological sex does not exist.
- Biological sex is a spectrum.
- “Gender” is a spectrum.
- Biological sex is “assigned” at birth, not identified and confirmed.
- Transgender women are women; transgender men are men.
- Even though according to the ideology, “gender” is distinct from biological sex, government-issued identification documents must allow someone to change his/her biological sex or choose a third option.
- “Gender” is “socially constructed“:
- “Gender” is completely disconnected from biological sex.
- There are more than two “genders”, maybe there are 31 “genders”, maybe 71, and maybe there is an infinite number of “genders” (i.e., each person’s “gender identity” is unique).
- “Non-binary” is a “gender”.
- All “genders” are valid, no matter how ridiculous.
- One can simply “become” the other gender — or any “gender”. Then one can simply return to the other gender — or any “gender”, because one is “gender fluid“.
- There is no advantage to biological men competing against biological women.
- Biological men who “self identify” as women must be allowed in women’s prisons, women’s sport, women’s bathrooms, and women’s changing rooms, because these biological men are, in fact, women.
- It’s necessary to force people to use “they/them” as pronouns or a list of completely made up bullshit pronouns. My preferred pronoun is “His Lordship”.
(Note that a complete overview of the ideological claims isn’t possible in such a short article. Readers should do their own research.)
In a very short period of time, Australia’s institutions — marched through by the Left — have implemented radical changes based on ideological drivel:
- Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships teach radical gender theory as fact.
- Cricket Australia and Rugby Australia accept men in dresses competing against women, despite the obvious physical advantages men have over women.
- In all states in Australia, one can change one’s biological sex on one’s birth certificate, and hence get other government-issued identification documents changed. NSW and Queensland require “sex reassignment” surgery.
- “Gender identity” anti-discrimination laws exists in all states. This means Australians are forced to treat men in dresses as women, which is a recipe for disaster for women, including one women’s only domestic violence shelter defunded. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.
- Men are now in the running for “woman of the year awards”.
Cricket Australia’s document — to which I linked — is a triumph of ideology over facts. One can see many of the radical gender claims in the document.
How Feminism is Connected to Radical Gender Theory.
As Douglas Murray pointed out in a recent interview, people are being educated into stupidity; that is, almost no one reaches the crazy conclusion that gender is a “social construct” by oneself. Such stupidity must be taught.
So where do these ideas come from? We need to go back to the ’50s.
John Money Brings the Word “Gender” into the English Language
Money was a New Zealand psychologist who immigrated to the US in 1947. He was raised in a very strict Christian family; however, Money quickly abandoned Christianity. Money’s strict upbringing led to his writing about the psychology of sexuality, believing that Christianity had placed “repressive religious structures” on him as a child. Money became a full supporter of the sexual revolution, supporting open marriage & openly admitting to having sex with men and women. Money’s work is highly controversial because he showed children pornography, insisted that twins inspect each other’s genitals, and told the same twins to pretend to have sex with each other.
The following paragraphs were taken from As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who was Raised a Girl:
“Money’s childhood difficulties were compounded by his vexed relationship with his father. Six decades later he would write with barely controlled venom of this father, portraying him as a brutal man who heartlessly shot and killed the birds that infested his fruit garden, and administered to his four-year-old son an “abusive interrogation and whipping” over a broken window. This incident, Money wrote, helped establish his lifelong rejection of “the brutality of manhood.”
“After his father’s death, Money was raised in an exclusively feminine atmosphere by his mother and spinster aunts, whose anti-male diatribes also had a lasting effect on him. “I suffered from the guilt of being male,” he wrote. “I wore the mark of man’s vile sexuality” —that is, the penis and testicles. In light of Money’s future fame in both adult and infant sex change, his next comment has an unsettling tenor: “I wondered if the world might really be a better place for women if not only farm animals but human males also were gelded at birth.”
In my opinion — having read about Money — Money went from a childhood upbringing with too many boundaries to a life with very few boundaries. His work is a function of his upbringing. The book I cited details Money’s very bad temper — like father like son — and his debunked ideas.
Money brought “gender” into the English language. Previously, “gender” was only used in English in linguistics to describe nouns in other languages, such as “der Hund” (the dog in German, the “der” taking the masculine article). Money coined the term to create — what we now know as false — a distinction between biological sex and one’s gender identity. In short, Money created idea that gender is “socially constructed”. Money also brought the words “gender identity”, “gender role”, and “sexual orientation” into the English language. This was the beginning of radical gender theory, well over 50 years ago.
This book outlines Money’s now infamous “treatment” of a young boy who had his penis burnt off during a botched circumcision. The young boy, David Reimer, was raised as a girl — following Money’s ideological insistence — but never accepted the transition, later returning to live as a man. Reimer tragically killed himself years later.
What is truly fascinating are the lengths to which Money went to protect his ideas. As it became clear that Reimer’s treatment was a complete disaster, Money refused to acknowledge his failure. Worse yet, the media — who famously talked up Money’s ideas and the Reimer treatment — were silent when his ideological drivel was exposed.
Reimer’s botched circumcision occurred in 1966. Aged 22 months, Reimer underwent “sex reassignment” surgery and began to live as a girl. At age 15 in 1981, Remier changed to live as a boy. In wasn’t until 1997 when Reimer was persuaded to go public with what really happened.
The dates are important, because feminists had 30 years, during which much ideological rubbish was written based on Money’s work. The ideological underpinning for feminism was set.
“The case also became a touchstone for the feminist movement in the 1970s, when it was widely cited as proof that the gender gap was purely a result of cultural conditioning, not biology. For Dr. John Money, the medical psychologist who was the architect of the experiment, the so-called “twins case” became the most publicly celebrated triumph of a forty-year career that in 1997 earned him the accolade “one of the greatest sex researchers of the century”.
Feminists have long attempted to identify differences in outcomes — e.g, pay, achievement, number of women in boardrooms, differences in IQ at the edges — as solely discrimination against women by men. If biological reasons for difference in outcomes can be discounted, the difference in outcomes between women and men can be put solely at the feet of society. And society can be changed. Thus the idea that gender is “socially constructed” was a panacea to the feminist movement: Men (known as the mythical “patriarchy”) can be blamed for all differences in outcomes.
Second wave French feminist Simone de Beauvoir’s influence cannot be underestimated in this movement, either. But first a word on de Beauvoir. She advocated in the ’70s — along with many other famous French intellectuals — for the removal of age of consent laws in France. de Beauvoir was, you guessed it, a Marxist.
de Beauvoir famously used to seduce students, then give them to her partner, Jean-Paul Sartre, with whom she had an open relationship. She also thought of fetuses as parasites:
“But pregnancy is above all a drama playing itself out in the woman between her and herself. She experiences it both as an enrichment and a mutilation; the fetus is part of her body, and it is a parasite exploiting her; she possesses it, and she is possessed by it; it encapsulates the whole future, and in carrying it, she feels as vast as the world; but this very richness annihilates her, she has the impression of not being anything else”.
In de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex“, she lays out the ground work for John Money’s claims in the first paragraph, claiming biology has nothing to do with womanhood:
“One is not born, but rather becomes, woman. No biological, psychic, or economic destiny defines the figure that the human female takes on in society; it is civilization as a whole that elaborates this intermediary product between the male and the eunuch that is called feminine”.
de Beauvoir & Money’s work paved the way for Kate Millet and Betty Friedan. Millet, in Sexual Politics — published in 1970 — quotes Money’s work as evidence that gender is indeed socially constructed. That is, differences in outcomes were not due to biology but rather society’s expectations and sexism.
These ideas then went mainstream at universities and textbooks:
“The twins case was quickly enshrined in myriad textbooks ranging from the social sciences to pediatric urology and endocrinology. “The clear message here is that even if biologically based sex differences in behavioral predispositions exist, social factors such as the sex which the child is assigned and in which the child is reared can substantially override and obscure them,” wrote Alice G. Sargent about the case in her 1977 women’s studies text, Beyond Sex Roles. Sociologists were equally enthralled by the case and cited it as the premier example of society’s power to mold the most fundamental building block of human identity. Typical was the textbook Sociology, first published in 1977, in which Ian Robertson wrote that Money’s work “indicates that children can easily be raised as a member of the opposite sex” and that what few inborn sex differences might exist in humans “are not clear-cut and can be overridden by cultural learning.” The 1979 volume Textbook of Sexual Medicine, by Robert Kolodny and renowned sex researchers Masters and Johnson, cited the case as compelling evidence of the power of nurture over nature: “The childhood development of this (genetically male) girl has been remarkably feminine and is very different from the behavior exhibited by her identical twin brother. The normality of her development can be viewed as a substantial indication of the plasticity of human gender identity and the relative importance of social learning and conditioning in this process”.
In 1972, John Money co-authored a textbook with Anke Ehrhardt called Man & Women, Boy & Girl, in which many of de Beauvoir & Money’s ideas were included. Reimer was used as an example of a successful gender reassignment.
Then came along third wave feminism. Judith Butler — arguably the grandmother of contemporary radical gender theory — who took the social constructionist idea of gender even further to claim that biological sex is socially constructed, too. Likewise, Butler argued that gender is performative: Culturally-compelled acts and behaviour that make up the identity of “woman” and “man”.
“The concept of gender, then, has ultimately served to pry a wedge between body and identity. Whereas sex once simply referred to a bodily given, a fact of nature, here the power of the body to constitute identity is diminished. “Woman” no longer refers simply to one’s sex, but rather to one’s gender, which has become an amorphous cultural construction that has a tenuous relationship to bodily sex. Once this distance between bodily sex and identity was enabled via gender, it did not take long—merely a few decades—for gender to shift meanings once again, becoming entirely disconnected from sex, which has paved the way for an even more fragmented and unstable understanding of personhood. Because gender is no longer anchored in maleness or femaleness, it is endlessly malleable; it is a concept that can be continually altered and redeployed, and we are witnessing in real time the wild proliferation of its meaning”.
Thus feminism ideologically erased womanhood. Even I, a biological male, can be a woman. What progress!
What most people don’t understand, however, is that these ideas are unquestionable in the Humanities, particularly in gender studies. These ideas are accepted as the truth, a leap of faith passed down by gender studies professors through their bibles of feminist “thought”, in their church we call universities.
Moreover, these ideas are strewn throughout the Humanities. Thousands of psychologists, criminologists, journalists, gender studies graduates, etc. are indoctrinated. Then these New Elites enter our institutions — the media, professional organisations, politics, education, lecturers/professors — to change society from within. This is the Left’s March Through Australia’s Institutions.
The March is the means by which society ends up with ideological nonsense in education (e.g, Safe Schools), professional organisations (e.g., the Australian Psychological Society), the media (e.g, the leftwing ABC), sport organisations (e.g., Cricket Australia) and HR departments around the country. This is why the Right loses the culture war, despite most people not supporting — or even knowing — the ideological underpinnings required for men in women’s sport or men in women’s prisons. Australians aren’t stupid, but The Elites are educated into stupidity.
Contemporary Radical Gender Theory (Transgender Theory)
Whilst gender used to be a social construct & biological sex is a reality, now gender identity is unquestionable and biological sex is socially constructed.
Transgender activists have produced a useful propaganda tool for child indoctrination, The latest version is called the Gender Elephant, which proceeds The Gingerbread Person and the Gender Unicorn.
Here we see that biological sex is a spectrum, not the correct slightly modified bimodal distribution that includes men, women, and a small number of intersex individuals.
(If one ever needed proof of the Left’s radicalism, it’s the fact that “intersex acceptance” was never a civil rights movement. The Left went straight for the ideological jugular: transgenderism.)
One can see that the transgender ideology has built upon ideas from second and third wave feminism:
- One’s “gender identity” is disconnected from one’s biological sex.
- The inference is that biological sex, “gender identity”, “gender expression”, and “physically/emotionally attracted to” are all independent of each other, disconnected and unrelated.
- “Gender expression” is Butler’s “gender performativity”.
- “Gender identity” and biological sex are both a spectrum.
- “Gender identity” is entirely in one’s mind, disconnected from biology. One’s subjective feelings ought to be believed over objective biology.
- Feminist theory gives rise to “gender fluidity”.
Likewise transgender ideology builds its own metaphysics:
- Biological sex is “assigned at birth”.
- Transgender women are women; transgender men are men.
- There is an infinite number of valid “genders”, anything one’s heart desires.
- “Non-binary” is a valid “gender”.
- Each gender can has its own pronouns, anything one cares to make up.
It’s impossible to write about radical gender theory without mentioning postmodernism. I’m going to avoid this topic completely, instead relying on an excellent article by Helen Pluckrose.
What I will point out, however, are the politics of the postmodern philosophers. Every single one is far left, certainly not the outcome one would expect if objective truth doesn’t exist. (One would expect postmodern philosophers to be roughly equally distributed across the political spectrum.)
In fact, every single person whom I’ve quoted — who has had a part to play in radical gender theory — has far left political views. Co-incidence?
Remember those French intellectuals who advocated for the removal of age of consent laws? Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard — the main French postmodern intellectuals — are all included. Foucault is one of the most cited intellectuals of all time, yet his disgusting opinions are rarely discussed.
Ideologies are usually full of contradictions that are completely ignored. Likewise, most ideologies have in-built protection mechanisms (e.g., feminists claim that women who disagree with feminist narratives have “internalised their misogyny”).
Here’s a list of contradictions in radical gender theory:
- If “gender” is “socially constructed”, it must follow that one’s sexual orientation is also “socially constructed”. Thus the argument that homosexuality is innate cannot be true. Yes, transgenderism undermines homosexuality. This is Orwell’s doublespeak: The ability to hold two mutually exclusive ideas simultaneously.
- “If gender is a social construct, how can gender identity be innate and immutable? How can one’s identity with respect to a social construct be determined by biology in the womb? How can one’s identity be unchangeable (immutable) with respect to an ever-changing social construct? And if gender identity is innate, how can it be “fluid”? … Which is it? Is our gender identity biologically determined and immutable, or self-created and changeable?”.
- If “gender” is “socially constructed”, where does “gender” exist? According to the Gender Elephant, “gender” is in one’s mind. But one’s mind is a function of biology, and hence how can “gender” then be “socially constructed”?
- “Is there a gender binary or not? Somehow, it both does and does not exist, according to transgender activists. If the categories of “man” and “woman” are objective enough that people can identify as, and be, men and women, how can gender also be a spectrum, where people can identify as, and be, both, or neither, or somewhere in between?”.
- Why is only “gender” “socially constructed”? Why can’t one identify as a different age, race, or even as non-human?
- How can either biological sex or “gender” be a spectrum? Most people (99.98%) are objectively male or female, with a tiny percentage of people having an intersex condition. Likewise, most people’s “gender identity” is congruent with their biological sex. A “spectrum” indicates varying differences across a continuum, not a slightly modified bimodal distribution.
As I originally wrote, ideas don’t come from no where. And people need to be educated into believing ridiculously stupid ideas.
Radical gender theory has its roots in Money’s ideological claims that went unchallenged for decades. Meanwhile second and third wave feminism took these ideas and developed them further.
The groundwork having been laid by feminism, transgender activists ideologically and legally erased womanhood. Feminism, in its misguided attempt to help women, only managed to place more barriers in front of women — men who can simply “self identify” as a woman.